I wouldn’t lie. Not that it would matter since I’m on the permanant deferral list. But even if it wasn’t for that, I am of the “If they don’t want me anyway, then they can fuck off” school of thought.
I met Australian author Bryce Courtenay not long after he published April Fool’s Day. I think he would frown on your actions.
How about i change the situation just for you and say that two medical professionals said you were ok?
(or you could read the thread)
I know a dude named Mick who would frown on yours.
Nothing to add?
(For the record the only “actions” i’ve taken are me posting on a message board)
:rolleyes: I read the thread. My answer stands. Knowing that you can have Hep C and still test negative influenced my answer, but the bottom line is that I defer to the judgement of those who laid out the criteria for blood donors for the Red Cross. Unless research told me that their judgement was flawed or prejudiced, I wouldn’t go against it just because my doctors had given me the all-clear because (IMO) that amounts to making decisions about the medical treatment of people I don’t even know. I would, however, try to bring about a change in the Red Cross’s criteria to stop excluding people who’ve had a homosexual experience. I would not donate blood until I could do so without lying about my status.
Lets compare Jimmy, who has only ever had protect sex with one man once, and Suzy, who has had protected sex with 40 different guys 10 times each.
They could BOTH have Hep C.
So why is Jimmy more at risk?
The form asks about sex with men, not gay sex.
And I disagree with the assertion that the blood of gay people having protected sex is just as safe as the blood of straight people having protected sex. Protection does NOT reduce the chances of disease transmission by 100%. It reduces it greatly, but there is still a chance.
Now, if we accept that unprotected gay sex with men is more likely to result in the transmission of HIV than unprotected straight sex (which I think is a safe assertion, since anal sex is much more likely to transmit the HIV virus and because a higher percentage of the gay population is HIV+) and we make the assumption that wearing a condom reduces the odds of transmission by 99% (just a figure I pulled out of my ass), 99% of X (X being the odds of getting HIV in unprotected gay sex) is higher than 99% of Y (Y being the odds of getting HIV in unprotected straight sex).
I don’t really think these rules are fair, but there are reasons for them and it’s a lie to say protected gay sex is just as safe as protected straight sex.
By the way, I can’t give blood for an even stupider reason - I had sex with a woman who was from Kenya. It doesn’t matter that she was from an upper-middle-class family there, and she was a virgin when she immigrated to the USA at the age of 14. I don’t like needles so I’m not going to complain, though.
The form asks about “Male to male sex”.
Jimmy as an individual who has taken precautions is not at greater risk, but Jimmy’s group (men who have sex with men) have a statistically higher likelihood of being HIV or HCV positive. That is a fact. And unfortunately the Red Cross does not have the luxury of scrutinizing every individual’s private life to determine whether they have safe responsible sex.
You need to look at this from the perspective of a statistician. Men younger than 25 who drive red convertibles have a statistically higher rate of auto accidents and therefore pay higher insurance premiums. Jimmy may be a 24 year old man who drives a red ferrari. Jimmy could be the most cautious driver around. Perhaps he always signals his intention to change lanes, counts to 3 at stop signs, and routinely checks his blind spots. But Jimmy is still a male under 25 who drives a red convertible and STATISTICALLY that group of people represent a higher risk. Is it fair? NO. But no insurance company is going to give Jimmy a discounted rate because he claims to be a safe driver. They go with the stats.
The Red Cross doesn’t want my blood because 1) I’ve spent too much time in the UK and 2) I’ve had sex with a man who’s had sex with other men. Do I think those are stupid reasons? Yup. But I don’t lie about it. They just don’t get my blood.
Same here. But even though the RC used a outdated and prone to False Positive test on me (some 15 years ago), one they no longer use, and my personal MD has sent them a letter saying I am clean as can be, they still have me on their blacklist.:mad:
No- if the Rc doesn’t want your blood for s stupid reason- don’t give it. In fact, ask your freinds who do to not give blood either. When they start running dry maybe they will rethink their foolish policies.
He’s not.
Look, the Red Cross can’t have 300,000,000 forms, one each for Jimmy, Suzy, Steve, Helen et al. They have to work with the odds. I appreciate that you’re confident you don’t have HIV, but they don’t know you personally, and the number of people who stupidly insist they aren’t sick when they are is a lot higher than you might think. And with all due respect, unless you get tested after every single sexual encounter or other exposures to bloodborne pathogens, which I’m confident you do not, you don’t know for sure, either.
The facts are - and they have been presented in detail, in this and other threads - that in North America men who have sex with other men are vastly more likely to have HIV, and a few other bloodborne diseases, than the population at large. It’s just the straightforward truth. Of course many gay men do not have HIV, but the Red Cross has to play the odds, and they have to do so in an extremely risk-averse manner. The impact of tainted blood getting into the supply vastly outweighs the imapct of limited supply. This is not theoretical; it’s happened, and it killed a great many people and resulted in a substantial drop in the public’s confidence in the service the Red Cross provides.
They’re not doing this to insult anyone, or because they’re evil, stupid bigots; they’re doing it because it’s the smart thing to do. And it’s telling that the American Red Cross is not unique in this regard; Canadian Blood Services has essentially the same set of rules. And these people know a lot more about the situation than you or me.
If they don’t want your blood you’ve no moral or ethical right to use deception to trick them into accepting it.
I saw a Jack Chick comic where he accuses gays of wanting to do this and calls it “blood terrorism”. I thought it was just another crazy thing he made up, I didn’t realize there were actually people stupid enough to advocate this.
I’m not in any of the “high risk” categories, but I think the rules are pretty damn arbitrary. So I usually refuse to donate blood based on that.
I want to take back part of my post. I called the Rc to see if I was still Blacklisted. I am. it was for the “Hep C Core Antibody test” which just shows I have some resistance to Hep. The guy I spoke to was sympathetic, said the test was stupid, and said he’d personally take my blood if he needed it any day. He sez he hopes that soem day they will be able to take my blood and also many more. So, it’s still stupid, and you shouldn’t give in to their stupidity, but I take back “In fact, ask your freinds who do to not give blood either”.
I agree, this is so stupid. When I was a kid in the 90’s my dad had a job where he had to go to England for several weeks at a time semi-regularly. If it was during our summer break, he would take my brother I along with him. Turns out that because of this the Red Cross thinks I have Mad Cow disease. Only problem, I didn’t like beef as a kid and never at it when I was there.
I hope one of the Doper Docs will drop by to tell you (authoritatively) that you endanger society with that attitude. Just because you tested negatively a month ago, hardy guarantees you’re negative today.
I could be very wrong but with your history of unprotected sex I am reasonably you could indeed have an STD and not even know it.
…reasonably certain you could indeed…
Testing negative today is not even good proof. It’s quite possible to be HIV positive for months, some say years, before you have enough antibodies to show up as positive. When I was tested, I was told that it was only reliable for if I had been exposed more than six months ago. I got retested again later because there had been a kinda skeevy girl less than six months before.
Think of it this way:
Of the people who are certain that they do not have HIV and possess what they consider proof of this, a small number are actually HIV positive. Of these, a higher proportion fall into certain categories, so they play it safe and exclude those categories regardless of other factors.
They would much rather exclude many qualified donators than increase the risk of an undetected contamination.